Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hello everyone

In some of the readings I have been doing recently, there was a mention of some people involved in all sorts of illegal gambling (a few infamous slumlords of Spitalfields being part of it) who developped a system so their bookies wouldn't spend time in jail.

They mention the Prevention of Crimes Act of 1871. According to this piece of legislation, police officer can arrest anyone simply by suspicion. If the person arrested already had two condemnations before, they can get 12 months behind bars without having committed any crimes.

I can't find anything in layman terms (English is not my mother tongue) about this.

So, was this repealed in 1888?
Did it only apply to certain categories of crimes?
How does that fit with the scandal of a woman wrongly arrested for solicitation and Warren's orders not to arrest unfortunates anymore?

Thank you.

[David Orsam]

Hi Sir John,

It was an Act aimed at habitual criminals only, i.e. criminals with more than one conviction. It didn't give the police the power to arrest "anyone" on suspicion. An habitual criminal could be arrested and charged if he appeared to the arresting officer to be making a living by dishonest means or was about to commit or aid in the commission of a criminal offence or was found loitering in a place for which he could not give a satisfactory explanation etc. He would be liable for imprisonment for a period up to 12 months if the court was satisfied that he was up to no good.

It remained in force in 1888 and had no bearing on the issue of women being wrongly arrested for solicitation.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hi Sir John,

It was an Act aimed at habitual criminals only, i.e. criminals with more than one conviction. It didn't give the police the power to arrest "anyone" on suspicion. An habitual criminal could be arrested and charged if he appeared to the arresting officer to be making a living by dishonest means or was about to commit or aid in the commission of a criminal offence or was found loitering in a place for which he could not give a satisfactory explanation etc. He would be liable for imprisonment for a period up to 12 months if the court was satisfied that he was up to no good.

It remained in force in 1888 and had no bearing on the issue of women being wrongly arrested for solicitation.

ooooooh, now I see. It makes more sense. Thanks a bunch.